Intentionality and Design in the Data Sonification of Social Issues

Source: Sara Lenzi and Paolo Ciuccarelli, “Intentionality and Design in the Data Sonification of Social Issues,” Big Data & Society 7.2 (2020), pp. 1–8. (Lenzi & Ciuccarelli, 2020) Local PDF

Central claim

Authors decide how data becomes sound and what that sound can mean. They must design the translation for a stated goal, listener and context, then remain responsible for the meanings their choices support.

Evidence and method

Lenzi and Ciuccarelli interpret five public sonification projects and place them on a scale of communicative intentionality. The cases cover activist communication, radio journalism, memorial work and Brian Foo’s data-driven music. The authors use project documentation and statements rather than a listener experiment.

Public sonification must account for usefulness, enjoyment and context while still providing a satisfying experience (pp. 1–2). Sound choice, mapping, accompanying visuals and the intended listening mode all affect what the public can understand.

The analysis of Brian Foo’s Two Trains questions his aim to use agnostic sounds and let data speak for itself. Listeners may give density, pitch, timbre and rhythm meanings that differ from the author’s intent, especially without context or training (pp. 5–6).

The authors argue that technical attention to data transfer is insufficient when a project intends to inform or affect a public. Translation always creates a communicative relation, so the author must consider its effects and limits (p. 6).

Key concepts

• Intentionality: Deliberate design for a purpose, context, audience and expected interpretation.
• Mapping problem: Data and acoustic dimensions have no automatic or neutral relation.
• Listening mode: Visual context, prior knowledge and sound material shape how a listener interprets a result.
• Author responsibility: Selection and translation remain authored even when a system follows consistent rules.
• Public communication: A usable mapping for experts may fail as an experience for untrained listeners.

Limits

The five cases form a small interpretive sample, and the paper does not measure listener understanding or behaviour. Its focus is communication about social issues rather than private functional listening. It cannot show whether a generative app’s mappings are audible or whether its claimed functions work.

Link to generative functional apps

Intentionality makes “personalization” a design choice with a stated purpose and audience. A consistent body-data mapping is still authored: someone decides which measurement matters, which musical variable it controls and what range counts as calm, focused or ready for sleep.

The Grimes collaboration involves artist identity, sound material, platform rules and listener interpretation. Her name and voice can supply meaning before the system responds to any data, so a generated result need not express either the artist or the listener directly.

references